In science we have the scientific method which we can use to ascertain truths about the world. It's the bedrock of all science. Without the controlled experiment we'd be swimming in a muddle of hypotheses, theories and explanations with no good way to tell which ones are true.
Do we have anything like that for history? If we have multiple explanations or hypotheses about events in the past, how do we tell which ones are are better? We have an intuitive sense that some explanations of historical events are better than others. But what is it that makes one explanation better than another? Has this ever been formalized? Can the study of history be made rigorous? It seems that the ideological lens through which one views the world plays a big role. Is there a way to remove it from the equation?
In science we have the scientific method which we can use to ascertain truths about the world. It's the bedrock of all science. Without the controlled experiment we'd be swimming in a muddle of hypotheses, theories and explanations with no good way to tell which ones are true.
Do we have anything like that for history? If we have multiple explanations or hypotheses about events in the past, how do we tell which ones are are better? We have an intuitive sense that some explanations of historical events are better than others. But what is it that makes one explanation better than another? Has this ever been formalized? Can the study of history be made rigorous? It seems that the ideological lens through which one views the world plays a big role. Is there a way to remove it from the equation?
(post is archived)